On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The you are all the guy who feel to be you, all the time.

So you is you. Thanks for clearing that up.

> You are using the pronouns in the confusing way, as you use "you", when I
> use always 1-you, and 3-you. In the mulitiplication, the 3-yous multiplies,
> and the 1-you mutliply too, in the 3-views, but not from any of each
> possible 1-views. So from the 1-views, it is like a sequence of random
> event,

Bruno Marchal says John Clark is confusing in the use of the pronoun "you"
and then give us the above incredible stew of mashed yous.

>>  But it's not just "you", Bruno Marchal is also inconsistent on who the
>> Helsinki guy is, sometimes he's the guy experiencing Helsinki and then the
>> Helsinki guy will see no city at all when he pushes that button, not even
>> Helsinki;
> >This contradicts comp.

If you say so. This confirms that I know almost nothing about "comp", and
have little desire to know more.

> > It would mean he did not survive classical teleportation

No it does not, it just means that if you define "the Helsinki Man" as the
man who's experiencing Helsinki and after the button is pressed nobody is
experiencing Helsinki anymore then there is no Helsinki man anymore; but of
course that's no problem to the former Helsinki man, he's doing fine in
Washington AND Moscow.  And this illustrates why precision of language is
so important in a world with duplicating chambers.

> Just look at the context, and chose the meaning which makes the point
> consistent. It seems obvious for most.

As a mathematician you must know that it is the step that is so "obviously"
true that you don't even bother to mention it that has brought many a proof
to grief.

>> It might be helpful  if Bruno Marchal could explain, without using
>> pronouns but by giving the subject a actual name, how  "the 3p view on the
>> 1p views" (whatever that is) differs from some other view.
> >After the duplication:
> There is one relevant 3p view, and it is:
>  "John-Clark-M enjoys Russian coffee and John-Clark-W enjoys American
> coffee".
> There are two relevant 1-p views, which are
> "I enjoy a russian coffee". And,
> "I enjoy American coffee".

And I am John Clark the Helsinki guy and after the button is pushed I John
Clark the former Helsinki guy will enjoy a russian coffee and I John Clark
the former Helsinki guy will enjoy a American coffee.

            >> obviously there is no unique future 1 view for the Helsinki
> man,
> > Why?
> Even in the 3p views, they are two unique (subjectively unique) futures.

That is a blatant contradiction, if there are 2 of something then it's not

> However even with duplicating chambers the past first person view remains
> unique, the Washington man was the Helsinki man and only the Helsinki man
> and the Moscow man was the Helsinki man and only the Helsinki man
> Very good!

Thank you, but it doesn't work the other way because time has a direction,
entropy increases the the present to the future.

>> So the pronoun "you" doesn't refer to anything

>Why? It refers clearly to two persons,

One pronoun is used to refer to two entirely different people in complex
thought experiment involving personal identity and Bruno Marchal wonders
why such a "clear" pronoun could possibly cause confusion. But then again,
for advocates of bad ideas confusion is a good thing.

>>> The prediction W is wrong
>  >> But I find Bruno Marchal in Washington and Bruno Marchal informs me
>> that the prediction was correct.
> > You have to listen to Bruno Marchal in Moscow too.

Why? Will Bruno Marchal in Moscow somehow convince me  that Bruno Marchal
in Washington was incorrect about Bruno Marchal being in Washington? I
don't think so because there is nothing wrong about 2 things being at 2
places at the same time and there are two of you because YOU HAVE BEEN

> >> OK Bruno, the experiment is long over and now that you have all the
> information you will ever have on the matter what would have been the
> correct prediction back in Helsinki, W or M? I'm not asking for a
> prediction, the experiment is now in the past so interview anybody and
> everybody and tell me  did "you" see W or M? Bruno Marchal insists there is
> one unique answer so let's hear it!
> > ?


> On the contrary they all agree with "W or M", ad they all live W, or M.

Well which is it? The experiment is over and it's time to find out, did it
turn out to be W or M? It's silly to assign a 50-50 probability, or any
other probability (except 100% or 0%) AFTER something has happened. If you
send a photon toward 2 slits quantum mechanics can give you probabilities
about where the photon will hit a photographic plate, but that's all. it
can't give you certainty. However once the experiment is over you can tell
where it hit the plate with no doubt whatsoever and you don't need abstruse
philosophy or advanced equations to do it, you just develop the
photographic plate. This experiment is over too and Bruno Marchal predicted
there would be one and only one answer, either W or M. so now that its over
I want to know the results, was it Washington or was it Moscow? Enough
philosophizing, it's time to develop the photographic plate so to speak and
find out what city beat out the other city.

> You keep confusing the 3-views on the 1-views and the 1-views about
> themselves,

You should get a rubber stamp of that phrase made, it's your standard reply
to all criticisms, and as I've said before if something is identical from
the 3-view it is certainly identical from the 1-view (although the reverse
is not always true); it you don't understand this point it is you that is
confused, very confused indeed.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to